Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1791

control, N = 901

treatment, N = 891

p-value2

age

177

50.88 ± 12.64 (25 - 75)

50.92 ± 12.93 (25 - 75)

50.84 ± 12.43 (28 - 73)

0.967

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

179

0.737

f

143 (80%)

71 (79%)

72 (81%)

m

36 (20%)

19 (21%)

17 (19%)

occupation

179

0.926

day_training

4 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

full_time

22 (12%)

12 (13%)

10 (11%)

homemaker

23 (13%)

11 (12%)

12 (13%)

other

2 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.2%)

part_time

32 (18%)

16 (18%)

16 (18%)

retired

43 (24%)

21 (23%)

22 (25%)

self_employ

7 (3.9%)

4 (4.4%)

3 (3.4%)

student

2 (1.1%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.2%)

t_and_e

2 (1.1%)

1 (1.1%)

1 (1.1%)

unemploy

42 (23%)

23 (26%)

19 (21%)

marital

179

0.958

cohabitation

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.1%)

divore

19 (11%)

11 (12%)

8 (9.0%)

in_relationship

4 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

married

56 (31%)

26 (29%)

30 (34%)

none

85 (47%)

43 (48%)

42 (47%)

seperation

3 (1.7%)

2 (2.2%)

1 (1.1%)

widow

11 (6.1%)

6 (6.7%)

5 (5.6%)

edu

179

0.457

bachelor

41 (23%)

17 (19%)

24 (27%)

diploma

32 (18%)

21 (23%)

11 (12%)

hd_ad

5 (2.8%)

4 (4.4%)

1 (1.1%)

postgraduate

15 (8.4%)

8 (8.9%)

7 (7.9%)

primary

13 (7.3%)

6 (6.7%)

7 (7.9%)

secondary_1_3

20 (11%)

10 (11%)

10 (11%)

secondary_4_5

43 (24%)

20 (22%)

23 (26%)

secondary_6_7

10 (5.6%)

4 (4.4%)

6 (6.7%)

fam_income

179

0.766

10001_12000

6 (3.4%)

2 (2.2%)

4 (4.5%)

12001_14000

10 (5.6%)

4 (4.4%)

6 (6.7%)

14001_16000

8 (4.5%)

3 (3.3%)

5 (5.6%)

16001_18000

4 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

2 (2.2%)

18001_20000

9 (5.0%)

7 (7.8%)

2 (2.2%)

20001_above

34 (19%)

20 (22%)

14 (16%)

2001_4000

24 (13%)

13 (14%)

11 (12%)

4001_6000

20 (11%)

8 (8.9%)

12 (13%)

6001_8000

17 (9.5%)

9 (10%)

8 (9.0%)

8001_10000

14 (7.8%)

7 (7.8%)

7 (7.9%)

below_2000

33 (18%)

15 (17%)

18 (20%)

medication

179

159 (89%)

79 (88%)

80 (90%)

0.654

onset_duration

177

15.30 ± 10.32 (0 - 56)

15.77 ± 11.29 (0 - 56)

14.80 ± 9.26 (0 - 35)

0.534

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

175

35.70 ± 13.58 (10 - 65)

35.02 ± 12.55 (10 - 61)

36.39 ± 14.60 (14 - 65)

0.505

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1791

control, N = 901

treatment, N = 891

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

179

3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.18 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.10 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

0.671

recovery_stage_b

179

17.89 ± 2.83 (8 - 24)

18.01 ± 2.90 (8 - 24)

17.76 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

0.561

ras_confidence

179

29.89 ± 5.32 (14 - 45)

29.63 ± 5.35 (14 - 42)

30.15 ± 5.32 (18 - 45)

0.521

ras_willingness

179

11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.76 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.82 ± 2.02 (7 - 15)

0.831

ras_goal

179

17.48 ± 3.17 (7 - 25)

17.33 ± 3.16 (7 - 25)

17.63 ± 3.20 (11 - 25)

0.534

ras_reliance

179

13.33 ± 2.90 (5 - 20)

13.11 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

13.55 ± 2.94 (7 - 20)

0.313

ras_domination

179

9.80 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

10.01 ± 2.49 (3 - 15)

9.60 ± 2.33 (3 - 15)

0.251

symptom

179

29.86 ± 9.12 (14 - 56)

29.98 ± 9.57 (14 - 55)

29.74 ± 8.69 (15 - 56)

0.863

slof_work

179

22.35 ± 4.74 (10 - 30)

22.63 ± 4.38 (12 - 30)

22.07 ± 5.09 (10 - 30)

0.426

slof_relationship

179

25.40 ± 5.87 (9 - 35)

25.13 ± 5.91 (9 - 35)

25.66 ± 5.86 (11 - 35)

0.548

satisfaction

179

20.47 ± 7.14 (5 - 35)

19.80 ± 7.10 (5 - 34)

21.16 ± 7.15 (5 - 35)

0.204

mhc_emotional

179

10.83 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.66 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

11.01 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

0.530

mhc_social

179

15.11 ± 5.66 (5 - 30)

15.12 ± 5.80 (5 - 30)

15.10 ± 5.54 (5 - 29)

0.980

mhc_psychological

179

21.79 ± 6.58 (6 - 36)

21.77 ± 6.63 (7 - 36)

21.81 ± 6.57 (6 - 36)

0.966

resilisnce

179

16.45 ± 4.77 (6 - 30)

16.01 ± 4.52 (6 - 30)

16.90 ± 4.99 (6 - 30)

0.214

social_provision

179

13.57 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.74 (5 - 20)

13.89 ± 2.96 (5 - 20)

0.140

els_value_living

179

17.01 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

16.79 ± 3.11 (6 - 24)

17.22 ± 3.26 (5 - 25)

0.362

els_life_fulfill

179

12.74 ± 3.41 (4 - 20)

12.33 ± 3.39 (5 - 20)

13.15 ± 3.40 (4 - 20)

0.111

els

179

29.74 ± 6.04 (9 - 45)

29.12 ± 5.92 (11 - 44)

30.37 ± 6.12 (9 - 45)

0.167

social_connect

179

26.44 ± 9.32 (8 - 48)

26.86 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

26.01 ± 9.54 (8 - 48)

0.546

shs_agency

179

14.35 ± 5.11 (3 - 24)

13.92 ± 4.84 (3 - 23)

14.79 ± 5.35 (3 - 24)

0.259

shs_pathway

179

16.00 ± 4.17 (3 - 24)

15.52 ± 4.22 (3 - 24)

16.48 ± 4.10 (4 - 24)

0.124

shs

179

30.35 ± 8.90 (6 - 48)

29.44 ± 8.71 (6 - 46)

31.27 ± 9.04 (7 - 48)

0.171

esteem

179

12.60 ± 1.57 (9 - 20)

12.60 ± 1.61 (9 - 18)

12.61 ± 1.53 (10 - 20)

0.977

mlq_search

179

14.89 ± 3.54 (3 - 21)

14.58 ± 3.56 (4 - 21)

15.21 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

0.230

mlq_presence

179

13.40 ± 4.39 (3 - 21)

13.31 ± 4.14 (3 - 21)

13.48 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)

0.794

mlq

179

28.29 ± 7.06 (6 - 42)

27.89 ± 6.78 (7 - 40)

28.70 ± 7.35 (6 - 42)

0.446

empower

179

19.20 ± 4.36 (6 - 30)

18.91 ± 4.28 (9 - 30)

19.48 ± 4.45 (6 - 30)

0.382

ismi_resistance

179

14.42 ± 2.58 (5 - 20)

14.44 ± 2.35 (6 - 20)

14.40 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

0.918

ismi_discrimation

179

11.61 ± 3.04 (5 - 20)

11.74 ± 2.91 (5 - 20)

11.48 ± 3.18 (5 - 20)

0.567

sss_affective

179

10.18 ± 3.62 (3 - 18)

10.08 ± 3.53 (3 - 18)

10.28 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.708

sss_behavior

179

9.84 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

9.89 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

9.80 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

0.871

sss_cognitive

179

8.39 ± 3.68 (3 - 18)

8.27 ± 3.59 (3 - 18)

8.51 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

0.666

sss

179

28.41 ± 10.26 (9 - 54)

28.23 ± 10.08 (9 - 54)

28.58 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)

0.820

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.18

0.125

2.93, 3.42

group

control

treatment

-0.077

0.177

-0.424, 0.271

0.666

time_point

1st

2nd

0.153

0.179

-0.197, 0.504

0.393

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.285

0.261

-0.226, 0.796

0.277

Pseudo R square

0.016

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.304

17.4, 18.6

group

control

treatment

-0.247

0.431

-1.09, 0.597

0.567

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.196

0.380

-0.942, 0.549

0.607

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.825

0.555

-0.263, 1.91

0.140

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.560

28.5, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.513

0.794

-1.04, 2.07

0.519

time_point

1st

2nd

0.865

0.559

-0.231, 1.96

0.125

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.10

0.818

-0.505, 2.70

0.183

Pseudo R square

0.023

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.8

0.211

11.3, 12.2

group

control

treatment

0.065

0.299

-0.521, 0.651

0.829

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.082

0.237

-0.547, 0.382

0.729

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.479

0.346

-0.200, 1.16

0.170

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.3

0.337

16.7, 18.0

group

control

treatment

0.296

0.478

-0.641, 1.23

0.537

time_point

1st

2nd

0.143

0.379

-0.600, 0.886

0.706

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.646

0.554

-0.440, 1.73

0.246

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.305

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.439

0.433

-0.409, 1.29

0.311

time_point

1st

2nd

0.362

0.333

-0.291, 1.01

0.280

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.413

0.487

-0.540, 1.37

0.398

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.0

0.253

9.52, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.416

0.359

-1.12, 0.288

0.248

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.038

0.332

-0.688, 0.612

0.909

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.05

0.484

0.104, 2.00

0.032

Pseudo R square

0.019

symptom

(Intercept)

30.0

0.957

28.1, 31.9

group

control

treatment

-0.236

1.357

-2.89, 2.42

0.862

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.53

0.811

-3.12, 0.063

0.063

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.201

1.187

-2.53, 2.13

0.866

Pseudo R square

0.007

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.6

0.496

21.7, 23.6

group

control

treatment

-0.566

0.704

-1.95, 0.813

0.422

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.075

0.504

-1.06, 0.912

0.882

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.400

0.737

-1.04, 1.84

0.588

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

0.613

23.9, 26.3

group

control

treatment

0.530

0.869

-1.17, 2.23

0.543

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.265

0.661

-1.56, 1.03

0.689

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.658

0.966

-1.24, 2.55

0.497

Pseudo R square

0.005

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.8

0.749

18.3, 21.3

group

control

treatment

1.36

1.062

-0.723, 3.44

0.203

time_point

1st

2nd

0.700

0.703

-0.678, 2.08

0.322

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.935

1.029

-1.08, 2.95

0.366

Pseudo R square

0.019

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.397

9.88, 11.4

group

control

treatment

0.356

0.563

-0.748, 1.46

0.528

time_point

1st

2nd

0.520

0.362

-0.189, 1.23

0.154

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.310

0.530

-1.35, 0.729

0.560

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.618

13.9, 16.3

group

control

treatment

-0.021

0.876

-1.74, 1.70

0.981

time_point

1st

2nd

0.959

0.639

-0.294, 2.21

0.137

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.179

0.934

-2.01, 1.65

0.848

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.711

20.4, 23.2

group

control

treatment

0.042

1.008

-1.93, 2.02

0.967

time_point

1st

2nd

1.14

0.725

-0.281, 2.56

0.119

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.293

1.061

-2.37, 1.79

0.783

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.0

0.488

15.1, 17.0

group

control

treatment

0.888

0.692

-0.468, 2.24

0.201

time_point

1st

2nd

0.472

0.542

-0.592, 1.53

0.387

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.13

0.793

-0.425, 2.68

0.158

Pseudo R square

0.030

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.301

12.7, 13.8

group

control

treatment

0.632

0.427

-0.205, 1.47

0.140

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.370

0.333

-1.02, 0.282

0.269

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.753

0.486

-0.201, 1.71

0.125

Pseudo R square

0.027

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.337

16.1, 17.5

group

control

treatment

0.436

0.479

-0.502, 1.37

0.364

time_point

1st

2nd

0.289

0.347

-0.390, 0.969

0.406

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.261

0.507

-0.733, 1.26

0.608

Pseudo R square

0.010

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.348

11.7, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.813

0.494

-0.155, 1.78

0.101

time_point

1st

2nd

0.359

0.329

-0.285, 1.00

0.277

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.192

0.481

-0.750, 1.13

0.690

Pseudo R square

0.021

els

(Intercept)

29.1

0.632

27.9, 30.4

group

control

treatment

1.25

0.896

-0.508, 3.00

0.165

time_point

1st

2nd

0.672

0.564

-0.433, 1.78

0.236

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.351

0.825

-1.27, 1.97

0.672

Pseudo R square

0.017

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

0.986

24.9, 28.8

group

control

treatment

-0.844

1.398

-3.58, 1.90

0.547

time_point

1st

2nd

0.134

0.892

-1.61, 1.88

0.881

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.90

1.306

-5.46, -0.344

0.029

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

0.532

12.9, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.864

0.755

-0.615, 2.34

0.253

time_point

1st

2nd

0.517

0.504

-0.472, 1.51

0.308

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.396

0.738

-1.05, 1.84

0.593

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.5

0.428

14.7, 16.4

group

control

treatment

0.961

0.607

-0.229, 2.15

0.115

time_point

1st

2nd

0.650

0.425

-0.184, 1.48

0.130

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.324

0.622

-1.54, 0.895

0.603

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.918

27.6, 31.2

group

control

treatment

1.83

1.301

-0.726, 4.38

0.162

time_point

1st

2nd

1.16

0.868

-0.538, 2.86

0.184

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.054

1.270

-2.43, 2.54

0.966

Pseudo R square

0.015

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.163

12.3, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.007

0.231

-0.445, 0.459

0.977

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.099

0.228

-0.546, 0.348

0.665

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.222

0.332

-0.430, 0.873

0.506

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.6

0.366

13.9, 15.3

group

control

treatment

0.636

0.519

-0.382, 1.65

0.222

time_point

1st

2nd

0.892

0.451

0.009, 1.77

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.996

0.658

-2.29, 0.294

0.133

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.455

12.4, 14.2

group

control

treatment

0.172

0.645

-1.09, 1.44

0.790

time_point

1st

2nd

0.948

0.511

-0.053, 1.95

0.066

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.284

0.746

-1.75, 1.18

0.704

Pseudo R square

0.008

mlq

(Intercept)

27.9

0.738

26.4, 29.3

group

control

treatment

0.808

1.046

-1.24, 2.86

0.441

time_point

1st

2nd

1.85

0.856

0.168, 3.52

0.033

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.27

1.251

-3.72, 1.19

0.314

Pseudo R square

0.009

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.457

18.0, 19.8

group

control

treatment

0.572

0.648

-0.699, 1.84

0.379

time_point

1st

2nd

1.00

0.465

0.089, 1.91

0.034

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.997

0.681

-2.33, 0.337

0.146

Pseudo R square

0.007

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.265

13.9, 15.0

group

control

treatment

-0.040

0.375

-0.776, 0.696

0.915

time_point

1st

2nd

0.157

0.325

-0.480, 0.794

0.629

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.464

0.475

-0.467, 1.39

0.331

Pseudo R square

0.007

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.7

0.329

11.1, 12.4

group

control

treatment

-0.261

0.466

-1.17, 0.652

0.576

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.294

0.432

-1.14, 0.553

0.498

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.515

0.631

-1.75, 0.722

0.416

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.383

9.33, 10.8

group

control

treatment

0.203

0.544

-0.863, 1.27

0.709

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.040

0.371

-0.768, 0.688

0.914

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.19

0.543

-2.26, -0.125

0.031

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.89

0.391

9.12, 10.7

group

control

treatment

-0.091

0.554

-1.18, 0.995

0.869

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.296

0.381

-1.04, 0.450

0.438

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.385

0.557

-1.48, 0.706

0.491

Pseudo R square

0.005

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.27

0.384

7.51, 9.02

group

control

treatment

0.239

0.545

-0.829, 1.31

0.661

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.126

0.398

-0.907, 0.654

0.752

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.764

0.583

-1.91, 0.378

0.193

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss

(Intercept)

28.2

1.080

26.1, 30.4

group

control

treatment

0.351

1.532

-2.65, 3.35

0.819

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.499

0.963

-2.39, 1.39

0.606

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.16

1.410

-4.92, 0.604

0.129

Pseudo R square

0.007

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.93, 3.42], t(259) = 25.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.27], t(259) = -0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.50], t(259) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.80], t(259) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.42, 18.61], t(259) = 59.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.60], t(259) = -0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.55], t(259) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.91], t(259) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.54, 30.73], t(259) = 52.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.07], t(259) = 0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.96], t(259) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.70], t(259) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.34, 12.17], t(259) = 55.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.65], t(259) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.38], t(259) = -0.35, p = 0.728; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.16], t(259) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.67, 17.99], t(259) = 51.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.23], t(259) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.89], t(259) = 0.38, p = 0.706; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.73], t(259) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.51, 13.71], t(259) = 42.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.41, 1.29], t(259) = 1.01, p = 0.310; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.01], t(259) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.37], t(259) = 0.85, p = 0.396; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.52, 10.51], t(259) = 39.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.29], t(259) = -1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.61], t(259) = -0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [0.10, 2.00], t(259) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [0.04, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.98 (95% CI [28.10, 31.85], t(259) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.42], t(259) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.53, 95% CI [-3.12, 0.06], t(259) = -1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 6.86e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-2.53, 2.13], t(259) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [21.66, 23.61], t(259) = 45.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.81], t(259) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.91], t(259) = -0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.84], t(259) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.13 (95% CI [23.93, 26.33], t(259) = 41.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.17, 2.23], t(259) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.03], t(259) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.55], t(259) = 0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.80 (95% CI [18.33, 21.27], t(259) = 26.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.44], t(259) = 1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.68, 2.08], t(259) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.95], t(259) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.88, 11.43], t(259) = 26.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.46], t(259) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.23], t(259) = 1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.73], t(259) = -0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.12 (95% CI [13.91, 16.33], t(259) = 24.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.70], t(259) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -3.64e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.21], t(259) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-2.01, 1.65], t(259) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.77 (95% CI [20.37, 23.16], t(259) = 30.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.02], t(259) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 6.35e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.56], t(259) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.37, 1.79], t(259) = -0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.06, 16.97], t(259) = 32.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.24], t(259) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.53], t(259) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.68], t(259) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.67, 13.85], t(259) = 44.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.47], t(259) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.28], t(259) = -1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.71], t(259) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.79 (95% CI [16.13, 17.45], t(259) = 49.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.37], t(259) = 0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.97], t(259) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.26], t(259) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.33 (95% CI [11.65, 13.02], t(259) = 35.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.78], t(259) = 1.65, p = 0.100; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.00], t(259) = 1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.13], t(259) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.12 (95% CI [27.88, 30.36], t(259) = 46.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.51, 3.00], t(259) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.78], t(259) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.97], t(259) = 0.43, p = 0.671; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.86 (95% CI [24.92, 28.79], t(259) = 27.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-3.58, 1.90], t(259) = -0.60, p = 0.546; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.88], t(259) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.90, 95% CI [-5.46, -0.34], t(259) = -2.22, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.92 (95% CI [12.88, 14.97], t(259) = 26.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.34], t(259) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.51], t(259) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.84], t(259) = 0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.52 (95% CI [14.68, 16.36], t(259) = 36.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.15], t(259) = 1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.48], t(259) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.90], t(259) = -0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.44 (95% CI [27.65, 31.24], t(259) = 32.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.83, 95% CI [-0.73, 4.38], t(259) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.86], t(259) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.43, 2.54], t(259) = 0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = 6.29e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.60 (95% CI [12.28, 12.92], t(259) = 77.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.46], t(259) = 0.03, p = 0.977; Std. beta = 4.37e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.35], t(259) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.87], t(259) = 0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.58 (95% CI [13.86, 15.30], t(259) = 39.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.65], t(259) = 1.22, p = 0.221; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [8.64e-03, 1.77], t(259) = 1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [2.48e-03, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.29], t(259) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.42, 14.20], t(259) = 29.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.44], t(259) = 0.27, p = 0.790; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.95], t(259) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.75, 1.18], t(259) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.89 (95% CI [26.44, 29.33], t(259) = 37.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.86], t(259) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [0.17, 3.52], t(259) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.19], t(259) = -1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.91 (95% CI [18.02, 19.81], t(259) = 41.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.84], t(259) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [0.09, 1.91], t(259) = 2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.02, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.34], t(259) = -1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.44 (95% CI [13.93, 14.96], t(259) = 54.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.70], t(259) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.79], t(259) = 0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.39], t(259) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.74 (95% CI [11.10, 12.39], t(259) = 35.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.65], t(259) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.55], t(259) = -0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.72], t(259) = -0.82, p = 0.415; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.08 (95% CI [9.33, 10.83], t(259) = 26.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.27], t(259) = 0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.69], t(259) = -0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-2.26, -0.13], t(259) = -2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.89 (95% CI [9.12, 10.65], t(259) = 25.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.99], t(259) = -0.16, p = 0.869; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.45], t(259) = -0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.71], t(259) = -0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.27 (95% CI [7.51, 9.02], t(259) = 21.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.31], t(259) = 0.44, p = 0.661; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.65], t(259) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.38], t(259) = -1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.23 (95% CI [26.12, 30.35], t(259) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.65, 3.35], t(259) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.39], t(259) = -0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-4.92, 0.60], t(259) = -1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

837.006

847.745

-415.503

831.006

recovery_stage_a

random

6

837.064

858.542

-412.532

825.064

5.941

3

0.114

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,286.590

1,297.329

-640.295

1,280.590

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,289.875

1,311.353

-638.937

1,277.875

2.715

3

0.438

ras_confidence

null

3

1,588.304

1,599.043

-791.152

1,582.304

ras_confidence

random

6

1,580.534

1,602.013

-784.267

1,568.534

13.770

3

0.003

ras_willingness

null

3

1,077.939

1,088.678

-535.969

1,071.939

ras_willingness

random

6

1,080.918

1,102.396

-534.459

1,068.918

3.021

3

0.388

ras_goal

null

3

1,328.671

1,339.410

-661.335

1,322.671

ras_goal

random

6

1,329.710

1,351.188

-658.855

1,317.710

4.961

3

0.175

ras_reliance

null

3

1,274.051

1,284.791

-634.026

1,268.051

ras_reliance

random

6

1,272.513

1,293.992

-630.257

1,260.513

7.538

3

0.057

ras_domination

null

3

1,201.939

1,212.678

-597.970

1,195.939

ras_domination

random

6

1,199.580

1,221.058

-593.790

1,187.580

8.359

3

0.039

symptom

null

3

1,839.611

1,850.350

-916.805

1,833.611

symptom

random

6

1,838.260

1,859.738

-913.130

1,826.260

7.351

3

0.062

slof_work

null

3

1,513.845

1,524.584

-753.922

1,507.845

slof_work

random

6

1,518.974

1,540.453

-753.487

1,506.974

0.870

3

0.833

slof_relationship

null

3

1,635.370

1,646.109

-814.685

1,629.370

slof_relationship

random

6

1,640.179

1,661.657

-814.090

1,628.179

1.191

3

0.755

satisfaction

null

3

1,726.751

1,737.491

-860.376

1,720.751

satisfaction

random

6

1,724.718

1,746.196

-856.359

1,712.718

8.034

3

0.045

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,380.640

1,391.379

-687.320

1,374.640

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,384.017

1,405.495

-686.008

1,372.017

2.623

3

0.453

mhc_social

null

3

1,635.506

1,646.246

-814.753

1,629.506

mhc_social

random

6

1,637.956

1,659.435

-812.978

1,625.956

3.550

3

0.314

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,708.086

1,718.825

-851.043

1,702.086

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,710.413

1,731.891

-849.207

1,698.413

3.673

3

0.299

resilisnce

null

3

1,529.206

1,539.946

-761.603

1,523.206

resilisnce

random

6

1,523.804

1,545.282

-755.902

1,511.804

11.403

3

0.010

social_provision

null

3

1,267.603

1,278.343

-630.802

1,261.603

social_provision

random

6

1,267.093

1,288.571

-627.546

1,255.093

6.511

3

0.089

els_value_living

null

3

1,314.615

1,325.354

-654.308

1,308.615

els_value_living

random

6

1,316.547

1,338.026

-652.274

1,304.547

4.068

3

0.254

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,320.552

1,331.291

-657.276

1,314.552

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,319.731

1,341.209

-653.865

1,307.731

6.821

3

0.078

els

null

3

1,627.245

1,637.984

-810.622

1,621.245

els

random

6

1,626.652

1,648.131

-807.326

1,614.652

6.592

3

0.086

social_connect

null

3

1,868.298

1,879.037

-931.149

1,862.298

social_connect

random

6

1,864.618

1,886.096

-926.309

1,852.618

9.681

3

0.021

shs_agency

null

3

1,544.857

1,555.596

-769.429

1,538.857

shs_agency

random

6

1,545.244

1,566.723

-766.622

1,533.244

5.613

3

0.132

shs_pathway

null

3

1,436.399

1,447.138

-715.200

1,430.399

shs_pathway

random

6

1,437.356

1,458.834

-712.678

1,425.356

5.043

3

0.169

shs

null

3

1,833.337

1,844.077

-913.669

1,827.337

shs

random

6

1,833.744

1,855.222

-910.872

1,821.744

5.593

3

0.133

esteem

null

3

968.107

978.846

-481.053

962.107

esteem

random

6

973.550

995.029

-480.775

961.550

0.556

3

0.906

mlq_search

null

3

1,384.982

1,395.721

-689.491

1,378.982

mlq_search

random

6

1,386.491

1,407.969

-687.245

1,374.491

4.491

3

0.213

mlq_presence

null

3

1,487.085

1,497.824

-740.543

1,481.085

mlq_presence

random

6

1,488.158

1,509.636

-738.079

1,476.158

4.928

3

0.177

mlq

null

3

1,748.533

1,759.272

-871.266

1,742.533

mlq

random

6

1,749.317

1,770.796

-868.659

1,737.317

5.216

3

0.157

empower

null

3

1,474.754

1,485.493

-734.377

1,468.754

empower

random

6

1,475.941

1,497.419

-731.970

1,463.941

4.814

3

0.186

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,211.823

1,222.562

-602.911

1,205.823

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,214.312

1,235.790

-601.156

1,202.312

3.511

3

0.319

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,336.756

1,347.495

-665.378

1,330.756

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,338.398

1,359.876

-663.199

1,326.398

4.358

3

0.225

sss_affective

null

3

1,378.563

1,389.302

-686.282

1,372.563

sss_affective

random

6

1,374.979

1,396.458

-681.490

1,362.979

9.584

3

0.022

sss_behavior

null

3

1,383.402

1,394.141

-688.701

1,377.402

sss_behavior

random

6

1,385.844

1,407.322

-686.922

1,373.844

3.558

3

0.313

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,385.181

1,395.920

-689.591

1,379.181

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,386.650

1,408.128

-687.325

1,374.650

4.531

3

0.210

sss

null

3

1,911.671

1,922.411

-952.836

1,905.671

sss

random

6

1,910.722

1,932.200

-949.361

1,898.722

6.950

3

0.074

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

90

3.18 ± 1.19

89

3.10 ± 1.19

0.666

0.082

recovery_stage_a

2nd

46

3.33 ± 1.15

-0.165

40

3.54 ± 1.14

-0.471

0.402

-0.224

recovery_stage_b

1st

90

18.01 ± 2.88

89

17.76 ± 2.88

0.567

0.128

recovery_stage_b

2nd

46

17.81 ± 2.67

0.102

40

18.39 ± 2.64

-0.325

0.314

-0.299

ras_confidence

1st

90

29.63 ± 5.31

89

30.15 ± 5.31

0.519

-0.185

ras_confidence

2nd

46

30.50 ± 4.58

-0.312

40

32.11 ± 4.48

-0.707

0.101

-0.580

ras_willingness

1st

90

11.76 ± 2.00

89

11.82 ± 2.00

0.829

-0.054

ras_willingness

2nd

46

11.67 ± 1.79

0.069

40

12.22 ± 1.76

-0.333

0.158

-0.457

ras_goal

1st

90

17.33 ± 3.20

89

17.63 ± 3.20

0.537

-0.156

ras_goal

2nd

46

17.48 ± 2.86

-0.075

40

18.42 ± 2.81

-0.415

0.125

-0.495

ras_reliance

1st

90

13.11 ± 2.90

89

13.55 ± 2.90

0.311

-0.264

ras_reliance

2nd

46

13.47 ± 2.56

-0.217

40

14.33 ± 2.52

-0.465

0.122

-0.512

ras_domination

1st

90

10.01 ± 2.40

89

9.60 ± 2.40

0.248

0.245

ras_domination

2nd

46

9.97 ± 2.26

0.022

40

10.61 ± 2.24

-0.597

0.191

-0.375

symptom

1st

90

29.98 ± 9.07

89

29.74 ± 9.07

0.862

0.059

symptom

2nd

46

28.45 ± 7.50

0.383

40

28.01 ± 7.27

0.433

0.784

0.110

slof_work

1st

90

22.63 ± 4.71

89

22.07 ± 4.71

0.422

0.226

slof_work

2nd

46

22.56 ± 4.08

0.030

40

22.39 ± 3.99

-0.130

0.850

0.066

slof_relationship

1st

90

25.13 ± 5.82

89

25.66 ± 5.82

0.543

-0.160

slof_relationship

2nd

46

24.87 ± 5.13

0.080

40

26.06 ± 5.04

-0.119

0.281

-0.360

satisfaction

1st

90

19.80 ± 7.10

89

21.16 ± 7.10

0.203

-0.390

satisfaction

2nd

46

20.50 ± 6.02

-0.201

40

22.79 ± 5.87

-0.471

0.075

-0.659

mhc_emotional

1st

90

10.66 ± 3.77

89

11.01 ± 3.77

0.528

-0.199

mhc_emotional

2nd

46

11.18 ± 3.17

-0.291

40

11.22 ± 3.09

-0.118

0.946

-0.026

mhc_social

1st

90

15.12 ± 5.86

89

15.10 ± 5.86

0.981

0.007

mhc_social

2nd

46

16.08 ± 5.11

-0.301

40

15.88 ± 5.00

-0.245

0.854

0.063

mhc_psychological

1st

90

21.77 ± 6.75

89

21.81 ± 6.75

0.967

-0.012

mhc_psychological

2nd

46

22.91 ± 5.85

-0.316

40

22.66 ± 5.73

-0.235

0.841

0.070

resilisnce

1st

90

16.01 ± 4.63

89

16.90 ± 4.63

0.201

-0.327

resilisnce

2nd

46

16.48 ± 4.12

-0.173

40

18.50 ± 4.05

-0.589

0.023

-0.742

social_provision

1st

90

13.26 ± 2.86

89

13.89 ± 2.86

0.140

-0.379

social_provision

2nd

46

12.89 ± 2.54

0.222

40

14.27 ± 2.50

-0.229

0.012

-0.831

els_value_living

1st

90

16.79 ± 3.20

89

17.22 ± 3.20

0.364

-0.253

els_value_living

2nd

46

17.08 ± 2.78

-0.168

40

17.77 ± 2.73

-0.319

0.243

-0.404

els_life_fulfill

1st

90

12.33 ± 3.30

89

13.15 ± 3.30

0.101

-0.500

els_life_fulfill

2nd

46

12.69 ± 2.80

-0.221

40

13.70 ± 2.73

-0.339

0.094

-0.618

els

1st

90

29.12 ± 5.99

89

30.37 ± 5.99

0.165

-0.449

els

2nd

46

29.79 ± 5.01

-0.242

40

31.39 ± 4.88

-0.368

0.136

-0.576

social_connect

1st

90

26.86 ± 9.35

89

26.01 ± 9.35

0.547

0.192

social_connect

2nd

46

26.99 ± 7.85

-0.031

40

23.24 ± 7.64

0.629

0.026

0.852

shs_agency

1st

90

13.92 ± 5.05

89

14.79 ± 5.05

0.253

-0.347

shs_agency

2nd

46

14.44 ± 4.29

-0.207

40

15.70 ± 4.19

-0.366

0.170

-0.505

shs_pathway

1st

90

15.52 ± 4.06

89

16.48 ± 4.06

0.115

-0.455

shs_pathway

2nd

46

16.17 ± 3.50

-0.308

40

16.81 ± 3.42

-0.154

0.395

-0.302

shs

1st

90

29.44 ± 8.71

89

31.27 ± 8.71

0.162

-0.425

shs

2nd

46

30.61 ± 7.40

-0.271

40

32.49 ± 7.21

-0.284

0.235

-0.438

esteem

1st

90

12.60 ± 1.54

89

12.61 ± 1.54

0.977

-0.006

esteem

2nd

46

12.50 ± 1.48

0.084

40

12.73 ± 1.47

-0.104

0.476

-0.193

mlq_search

1st

90

14.58 ± 3.47

89

15.21 ± 3.47

0.222

-0.278

mlq_search

2nd

46

15.47 ± 3.20

-0.390

40

15.11 ± 3.16

0.046

0.601

0.158

mlq_presence

1st

90

13.31 ± 4.31

89

13.48 ± 4.31

0.790

-0.067

mlq_presence

2nd

46

14.26 ± 3.86

-0.370

40

14.15 ± 3.79

-0.259

0.892

0.044

mlq

1st

90

27.89 ± 7.00

89

28.70 ± 7.00

0.441

-0.187

mlq

2nd

46

29.73 ± 6.32

-0.428

40

29.28 ± 6.23

-0.135

0.736

0.106

empower

1st

90

18.91 ± 4.34

89

19.48 ± 4.34

0.379

-0.247

empower

2nd

46

19.91 ± 3.76

-0.433

40

19.49 ± 3.68

-0.002

0.598

0.184

ismi_resistance

1st

90

14.44 ± 2.51

89

14.40 ± 2.51

0.915

0.024

ismi_resistance

2nd

46

14.60 ± 2.31

-0.096

40

15.03 ± 2.28

-0.377

0.394

-0.257

ismi_discrimation

1st

90

11.74 ± 3.12

89

11.48 ± 3.12

0.576

0.118

ismi_discrimation

2nd

46

11.45 ± 2.93

0.133

40

10.67 ± 2.91

0.365

0.220

0.350

sss_affective

1st

90

10.08 ± 3.64

89

10.28 ± 3.64

0.709

-0.110

sss_affective

2nd

46

10.04 ± 3.11

0.022

40

9.05 ± 3.04

0.669

0.138

0.537

sss_behavior

1st

90

9.89 ± 3.71

89

9.80 ± 3.71

0.869

0.048

sss_behavior

2nd

46

9.59 ± 3.17

0.157

40

9.12 ± 3.10

0.361

0.483

0.253

sss_cognitive

1st

90

8.27 ± 3.64

89

8.51 ± 3.64

0.661

-0.120

sss_cognitive

2nd

46

8.14 ± 3.18

0.064

40

7.61 ± 3.11

0.449

0.440

0.265

sss

1st

90

28.23 ± 10.25

89

28.58 ± 10.25

0.819

-0.074

sss

2nd

46

27.73 ± 8.57

0.105

40

25.93 ± 8.34

0.560

0.323

0.381

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(239.22) = -0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.27)

2st

t(255.27) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.70)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(222.06) = -0.57, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.60)

2st

t(255.70) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.71)

ras_confidence

1st

t(202.89) = 0.65, p = 0.519, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.08)

2st

t(260.77) = 1.64, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.32 to 3.54)

ras_willingness

1st

t(211.47) = 0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.65)

2st

t(258.41) = 1.42, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.30)

ras_goal

1st

t(211.51) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.24)

2st

t(258.39) = 1.54, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.15)

ras_reliance

1st

t(209.02) = 1.01, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.29)

2st

t(259.18) = 1.55, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.93)

ras_domination

1st

t(227.46) = -1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.29)

2st

t(255.01) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.59)

symptom

1st

t(194.73) = -0.17, p = 0.862, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.44)

2st

t(259.18) = -0.27, p = 0.784, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.58 to 2.70)

slof_work

1st

t(203.96) = -0.80, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.82)

2st

t(260.57) = -0.19, p = 0.850, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st

t(208.11) = 0.61, p = 0.543, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.18 to 2.24)

2st

t(259.46) = 1.08, p = 0.281, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.98 to 3.35)

satisfaction

1st

t(199.46) = 1.28, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.45)

2st

t(260.97) = 1.78, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.24 to 4.82)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(197.95) = 0.63, p = 0.528, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.47)

2st

t(260.73) = 0.07, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.38)

mhc_social

1st

t(205.18) = -0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.71)

2st

t(260.29) = -0.18, p = 0.854, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.35 to 1.95)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(204.27) = 0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.03)

2st

t(260.50) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.72 to 2.21)

resilisnce

1st

t(210.58) = 1.28, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.25)

2st

t(258.69) = 2.28, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.28 to 3.76)

social_provision

1st

t(210.10) = 1.48, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.47)

2st

t(258.84) = 2.55, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.46)

els_value_living

1st

t(204.74) = 0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.38)

2st

t(260.39) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.87)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(199.71) = 1.65, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.79)

2st

t(260.98) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.18)

els

1st

t(196.93) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.02)

2st

t(260.42) = 1.50, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.50 to 3.70)

social_connect

1st

t(197.58) = -0.60, p = 0.547, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.60 to 1.91)

2st

t(260.63) = -2.24, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-7.04 to -0.45)

shs_agency

1st

t(199.91) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.35)

2st

t(260.99) = 1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.54 to 3.06)

shs_pathway

1st

t(202.61) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.16)

2st

t(260.82) = 0.85, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.11)

shs

1st

t(199.80) = 1.40, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.74 to 4.39)

2st

t(260.99) = 1.19, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.23 to 4.99)

esteem

1st

t(236.52) = 0.03, p = 0.977, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.46)

2st

t(255.01) = 0.71, p = 0.476, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.86)

mlq_search

1st

t(220.12) = 1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.66)

2st

t(256.07) = -0.52, p = 0.601, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.99)

mlq_presence

1st

t(211.37) = 0.27, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.44)

2st

t(258.44) = -0.14, p = 0.892, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.74 to 1.51)

mlq

1st

t(214.27) = 0.77, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.87)

2st

t(257.56) = -0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.13 to 2.21)

empower

1st

t(204.14) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.85)

2st

t(260.53) = -0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.16)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(219.85) = -0.11, p = 0.915, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.70)

2st

t(256.13) = 0.85, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.40)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(227.91) = -0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.66)

2st

t(254.97) = -1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.47)

sss_affective

1st

t(201.11) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.28)

2st

t(260.98) = -1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.29 to 0.32)

sss_behavior

1st

t(201.48) = -0.16, p = 0.869, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.00)

2st

t(260.95) = -0.70, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.86)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(205.37) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.31)

2st

t(260.24) = -0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.81)

sss

1st

t(196.90) = 0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.67 to 3.37)

2st

t(260.40) = -0.99, p = 0.323, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.40 to 1.79)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(125.49) = 2.30, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.81)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(111.68) = 1.55, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.43)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(99.00) = 3.28, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.78 to 3.15)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(104.44) = 1.56, p = 0.242, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.90)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(104.47) = 1.95, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.59)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(102.85) = 2.18, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.48)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(115.68) = 2.87, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.72)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(94.08) = -1.99, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-3.45 to -0.00)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(99.65) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.39)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(102.27) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.79)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(96.90) = 2.17, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.13)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(95.99) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(100.42) = 1.14, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.14)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(99.85) = 1.09, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.39)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(103.86) = 2.76, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.45 to 2.75)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(103.55) = 1.07, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.09)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(100.14) = 1.48, p = 0.283, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.29)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(97.05) = 1.57, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.25)

els

1st vs 2st

t(95.38) = 1.69, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.22)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(95.77) = -2.90, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.66 to -0.87)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(97.18) = 1.69, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.98)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(98.82) = 0.71, p = 0.953, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.23)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(97.10) = 1.31, p = 0.386, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.63 to 3.06)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(123.06) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.60)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(110.30) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(104.37) = 1.21, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.75)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(106.29) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.39)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(99.77) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.99)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(110.11) = 1.79, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.31)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(116.03) = -1.75, p = 0.165, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.72 to 0.11)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(97.90) = -3.10, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.02 to -0.44)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(98.13) = -1.67, p = 0.195, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(100.54) = -2.09, p = 0.078, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.04)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(95.36) = -2.58, p = 0.023, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.71 to -0.61)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(119.96) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.51)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(108.13) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.56)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(97.17) = 1.54, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.98)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(101.89) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.39)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(101.91) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.90)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(100.51) = 1.08, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.02)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(111.56) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.62)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(92.88) = -1.88, p = 0.127, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.14 to 0.09)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(97.74) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.93)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(100.01) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.58 to 1.05)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(95.34) = 0.99, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.10)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(94.55) = 1.43, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.24)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(98.40) = 1.50, p = 0.275, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.23)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(97.91) = 1.57, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.58)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(101.38) = 0.87, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.55)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(101.12) = -1.11, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.29)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(98.16) = 0.83, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.98)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(95.48) = 1.09, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.01)

els

1st vs 2st

t(94.02) = 1.19, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.79)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(94.36) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.64 to 1.91)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(95.58) = 1.02, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.52)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(97.01) = 1.52, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.50)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(95.52) = 1.34, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.89)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(117.89) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.35)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(106.94) = 1.97, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.79)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(101.83) = 1.85, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.96)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(103.49) = 2.15, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.14 to 3.55)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(97.84) = 2.15, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.93)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(106.78) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.80)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(111.86) = -0.68, p = 0.999, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.15 to 0.57)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(96.22) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.70)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(96.41) = -0.78, p = 0.878, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.46)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(98.51) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.67)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(94.00) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.41 to 1.42)

Plot

Clinical significance